Talk:Madonna/Archive 16
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Madonna. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
New music 2014/2015?
I recently saw that Madonna is producing some new "ballad" or "grown up" music as it was reported by The Guardian (UK) and Daily Mail which features Adele as a collaboration. I don't know if it should be included in the article because it maybe rumors or such, but would it be sufficient to add?? Thank you. Links:
- Thank you. I think at present it kind of violates WP:CRYSTAL too much. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for the reference :) GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 10:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Use of the N-Word
Madonna recently sustained criticism for using a racial slur on social media. This received significant media coverage and should be covered in this article. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]50.14.213.167 (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- In the grand scheme of her career, this is not really anything worth mentioning. It's more of a sad commentary about our media that something like this generates so many news stories. --Laser brain (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is your personal opinion that this is not worth mentioning. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources..." Therefore, this should at least be mentioned in the article since it appears in so many mainstream news sources. As for your own personal opinion as to whether the incident was newsworthy, we can assume that you are not African-American. Here is an article that more or less explains why the issue is important:[9]50.14.213.167 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Right, you left off the second part of that sentence which is about being proportionate to the rest of her life and career. For someone with such a long career and so many incidents of significant controversy, an instagram post that generated an explosion of news posts probably written by bored interns on a slow news day doesn't register very high. As you pointed out, however, this is only my opinion and I welcome others to chime in. And by the way, you cannot assume anything about my race nor does it have any bearing on this conversation. --Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- With so many mainstream sources, it must go in the article. It's not up to us as to whether the story was covered on a "slow news day".ErykahHuggins (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's not my main point at all. My main point is that it would be disproportionate to cover this incident as if it were as important as the other major events in her career. Was the video for Like a Prayer a controversy worth mentioning? Of course—it was on the front page of magazines and talked about for years to come. I don't see this incident as being on the same playing field. --Laser brain (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's fine. By all means, add the other controversies as well. Just as long as you add this one.ErykahHuggins (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think that this issue is worth mentioning right now; like Laser brain has said, this passing criticism is really pretty minor when you consider the controversy she has generated in the past. It's made well-known throughout the article that Madonna is no stranger to controversy, and that alone should suffice in this situation. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- As Laser brain pointed out, this is completely WP:UNDUE. The major criticisms and controversies are all covered and given relevant importance. Some of these unnecessary arguments about her expressions seems a too "controversy for controversy's sake". —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think that this issue is worth mentioning right now; like Laser brain has said, this passing criticism is really pretty minor when you consider the controversy she has generated in the past. It's made well-known throughout the article that Madonna is no stranger to controversy, and that alone should suffice in this situation. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's fine. By all means, add the other controversies as well. Just as long as you add this one.ErykahHuggins (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's not my main point at all. My main point is that it would be disproportionate to cover this incident as if it were as important as the other major events in her career. Was the video for Like a Prayer a controversy worth mentioning? Of course—it was on the front page of magazines and talked about for years to come. I don't see this incident as being on the same playing field. --Laser brain (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- With so many mainstream sources, it must go in the article. It's not up to us as to whether the story was covered on a "slow news day".ErykahHuggins (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Right, you left off the second part of that sentence which is about being proportionate to the rest of her life and career. For someone with such a long career and so many incidents of significant controversy, an instagram post that generated an explosion of news posts probably written by bored interns on a slow news day doesn't register very high. As you pointed out, however, this is only my opinion and I welcome others to chime in. And by the way, you cannot assume anything about my race nor does it have any bearing on this conversation. --Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is your personal opinion that this is not worth mentioning. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources..." Therefore, this should at least be mentioned in the article since it appears in so many mainstream news sources. As for your own personal opinion as to whether the incident was newsworthy, we can assume that you are not African-American. Here is an article that more or less explains why the issue is important:[9]50.14.213.167 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Years active
I am looking way, way back in the revision history and up until 2010 the infobox said her years active were since 1982. Now it says 1979, which is skeptical. Professionally her debut was 1982 when she signed a deal with Sire and recorded her first single. Casually, if we are to include her work in the Breakfast Club and Emmy bands, her years active should go no further back than 1980, since the "Pre-Madonna" album labels all her pre-fame recordings as 1980 or 1981. Kaynow5 (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's been discussed in the past if you bother to see the archive of this talk page. Madonna acted in her first ever film A Certain Sacrifice in 1979. During that year, she also toured with Patrick Hernandez's Born to Be Alive Tour as his dancer and backup singer. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- I see it now. That was more of a one-sentence response to a question than a discussion. I feel it should be argued again. I haven't extensively researched the details, but the Wiki page for A Certain Sacrifice says Madonna completed her scenes in the fall of 1980 (the production started in September 1979 and intermittently continued until 1983). It does not say Madonna was working on it in 1979. But, if she did, it was just a student film for which she was paid a hundred bucks (everyone else appeared in it for free). Should a student film really be considered an active part of her career? I wouldn't consider it to be. As for the Hernandez tour, I'm not familiar with that, either, other than what is stated in an article: that she was a backup dancer (no mention of singing) in his 1979 tour. Again, should a stint as a backup dancer be considered part of her active career? I don't think so. By that standard, Madonna's job at Dunkin' Donuts when she was 19 would be considered part of her "years active". I though the general consensus, to the world really, was that Madonna's career began in 1982 when she was first signed to a label. Kaynow5 (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Please support your statement with WP:RS, not by reading a Wiki article. Joining an established artist's world tour has clearly indicated that she was a professional dancer. We don't consider her job at Dunkin' Donuts as part of years active because waitress is not her career... but singer, dancer, songwriter, actress, etc (see on the infobox). As for A Certain Sacrifice, no matter how much she was paid for the movie, she is the leading actor for it, and it's the very beginning of her movie career. Signing to record label is not essentially the start of career; Lady Gaga's years active is from 2005 not 2008, Britney Spears's is from 1992 not 1998, Whitney Houston's is from 1977 not 1983. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Spears was in the Mickey Mouse Club in the early 90s, Houston sang back-up for Chakha Kahn and met Elvis, and Gaga had a song that went into the Songwriters Hall of Fame. I respect your opinion, but I feel there should be a group discussion on this subject. It doesn't appear there ever was one, based on what you directed me to in the talk page history. Kaynow5 (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, you conclude the point yourself, signing to record label =/= start of "years active". The same goes to Madonna, she toured with Patrick Hernandez whose "Born to Be Alive" was a worldwide number one hit that year, as well as made her first-ever movie. FYI, it's even not me who wrote that "1979" number on this page, to be honest. This revision from August 2009 has already had that 'years active' and nothing has changed until your last edit. It also had that year active when it's promoted to featured article in 2010. Considering that time span of revision, I think 1979 is the general consensus. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Madonna's career started in 1979. This is a known fact and countless sources support that as well. And Kaynow, I have not seen anything other than WP:OR from you. Please discuss with facts and reliabel references else this discussion itself is moot. Madonna started as a dancer with Patrick and 1979 was the year she joined on tour as well as an actress in A Certain Sacrifice which was released commercially also. MTV, People, Mary Cross bio, The Madonna Companion, Taraborrelli etc to name a few. Furthermore, she was part of a music band Breakfast Club and Emmy which began in 1979. So yes, the year 1979 is when she professionally started her career. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, you conclude the point yourself, signing to record label =/= start of "years active". The same goes to Madonna, she toured with Patrick Hernandez whose "Born to Be Alive" was a worldwide number one hit that year, as well as made her first-ever movie. FYI, it's even not me who wrote that "1979" number on this page, to be honest. This revision from August 2009 has already had that 'years active' and nothing has changed until your last edit. It also had that year active when it's promoted to featured article in 2010. Considering that time span of revision, I think 1979 is the general consensus. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Spears was in the Mickey Mouse Club in the early 90s, Houston sang back-up for Chakha Kahn and met Elvis, and Gaga had a song that went into the Songwriters Hall of Fame. I respect your opinion, but I feel there should be a group discussion on this subject. It doesn't appear there ever was one, based on what you directed me to in the talk page history. Kaynow5 (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Please support your statement with WP:RS, not by reading a Wiki article. Joining an established artist's world tour has clearly indicated that she was a professional dancer. We don't consider her job at Dunkin' Donuts as part of years active because waitress is not her career... but singer, dancer, songwriter, actress, etc (see on the infobox). As for A Certain Sacrifice, no matter how much she was paid for the movie, she is the leading actor for it, and it's the very beginning of her movie career. Signing to record label is not essentially the start of career; Lady Gaga's years active is from 2005 not 2008, Britney Spears's is from 1992 not 1998, Whitney Houston's is from 1977 not 1983. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I see it now. That was more of a one-sentence response to a question than a discussion. I feel it should be argued again. I haven't extensively researched the details, but the Wiki page for A Certain Sacrifice says Madonna completed her scenes in the fall of 1980 (the production started in September 1979 and intermittently continued until 1983). It does not say Madonna was working on it in 1979. But, if she did, it was just a student film for which she was paid a hundred bucks (everyone else appeared in it for free). Should a student film really be considered an active part of her career? I wouldn't consider it to be. As for the Hernandez tour, I'm not familiar with that, either, other than what is stated in an article: that she was a backup dancer (no mention of singing) in his 1979 tour. Again, should a stint as a backup dancer be considered part of her active career? I don't think so. By that standard, Madonna's job at Dunkin' Donuts when she was 19 would be considered part of her "years active". I though the general consensus, to the world really, was that Madonna's career began in 1982 when she was first signed to a label. Kaynow5 (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Did she drop Ritchie from her name?
Some time ago her full name was listed here as Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritchie, now it is just Madonna Louise Ciccone. Did she legally drop Ritchie from her surname, or was that just assumed? Kaynow5 (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Link to Instagram?
Should not Madonna's official Instagramaccount entered? A suggestion to anyone who has permission to do this, I may not. The address: http://instagram.com/madonna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerbaz (talk • contribs) 18:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
13th Studio album
Madonna work with Avicci on 13th album
Madonna posted on Facebook that she was off to the studio to work with Avicci. Presumably on her upcoming studio album.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/a556274/madonna-reveals-she-is-recording-new-tracks-with-avicii.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.145.6 (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- None of this exactly screams to me as confirmed producer or anything, so it is still too early to even list anything at all. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Business ventures
Shouldn't it be better if a new section be added with further and deeper information about her whole enterprise? Everything relating all her ventures in a separate section might be more convenient to read. From Maverick, Boy Toy. Inc, Semtex Girls, Raising Malawi, Material Girl Collection to the Hard Candy Fittness. --Watquaza (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, I oppose the creation of such section. This article is already huge and her career is still going on. All her enterprise works have been described chronologically throughout the "Life and Career" section. Besides, we have already created separate articles like Madonna fashion brands, Hard Candy Fitness, Raising Malawi. So creating a new section to those whole stuff is just a redundancy. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Evita detail
The articles says, "During shooting she fell sick many times due to the intense emotional effort required." However, as she told Oprah, she was also pregnant during the filming, which was also a factor: I was winded after every take. I had to lie on the couch every ten minutes so I could recover from dizzy spells, I was worried that I was shaking the baby around too much and that would injure it in some way.source. Worth adding? It's one of my favorite films so I find this aspect interesting. --Light show (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Cool quote, please do the honors Light Show. :) —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of her rape.
Being dragged down an alley at knife point and forced to perform fellatio, by any definition, constitutes rape. The wording of the article, namely that she 'characterized' this incident as rape, carries the unnecessary and slightly disturbing suggestion that there is some ambiguity around the content of the claim. Whoever has access to this article should edit accordingly.
- Seeing to it that "rape" is defined as forced sex, the term is generally applied to vaginal sex, maybe anal as well sometimes, but not to oral. For being forced to perform oral, it comes off as more sexual assault than it does rape. If she was also forced to have vaginal and/or perhaps anal sex, THAT would be seen as rape. However, there seems to be some ambiguity in the way things were written as to whether she forced to do more than perform oral. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- The article says she was dragged up an alleyway and forced to perform fellatio; the first reference I don't have access to, but the second one says she was raped on a rooftop, and doesn't say that rape is her characterisation. The article should more clearly reflect its sources. (Hohum @) 17:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Hohum:, how is the source being represented when it clearly says The first year, I was held up at gunpoint. Raped on the roof of a building I was dragged up to with a knife in my back? FWIW, O'Brien says the same too. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Does O'Brien state she was forced to perform oral in addition to being vaginally raped? I don't have access to the book. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- O'Brien clear cuts says that she was "raped". God why this fascination with vaginal/anal etc? C'mon guys! —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Since oral is sometimes mistakenly used to describe rape, it helps to know which was the case. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- She was forced to do it, she did not go around saying "Hey you, lemme give you a banana peel and then we can be grindin' on that wood". She was flat out raped, and that's it. Both sources say so and Madonna says so too. And we don't have to be anal about it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. That's aural enough for this topic. --Light show (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- She was forced to do it, she did not go around saying "Hey you, lemme give you a banana peel and then we can be grindin' on that wood". She was flat out raped, and that's it. Both sources say so and Madonna says so too. And we don't have to be anal about it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Since oral is sometimes mistakenly used to describe rape, it helps to know which was the case. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- O'Brien clear cuts says that she was "raped". God why this fascination with vaginal/anal etc? C'mon guys! —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Does O'Brien state she was forced to perform oral in addition to being vaginally raped? I don't have access to the book. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Hohum:, how is the source being represented when it clearly says The first year, I was held up at gunpoint. Raped on the roof of a building I was dragged up to with a knife in my back? FWIW, O'Brien says the same too. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- The article says she was dragged up an alleyway and forced to perform fellatio; the first reference I don't have access to, but the second one says she was raped on a rooftop, and doesn't say that rape is her characterisation. The article should more clearly reflect its sources. (Hohum @) 17:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The rape article clearly states: "In 2012, the FBI changed their definition from "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." to "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."" — Status (talk · contribs) 05:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- While rape is defined as forcing another person to have sex, we can't exactly use Wikipedia pages as references for answers..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- The source is the FBI, not Wikipedia. The definition of rape includes oral. — Status (talk · contribs) 05:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- My mistake for misinterpreting the reference..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'll try again: The article says she was dragged down an alleyway, forced to perform fellatio, and that she characterised the attack as rape. The source I can see says she was raped on a rooftop, no mention of an alleyway, or fellatio, or her characterisation of it as rape. The details in the article aren't in the second source, so why is it even being used? Hopefully the first source, which I don't have access to, supports what the article says. (Hohum @) 12:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please read what I linked above. All the points you mentioned are there in the NY link. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'll try again: The article says she was dragged down an alleyway, forced to perform fellatio, and that she characterised the attack as rape. The source I can see says she was raped on a rooftop, no mention of an alleyway, or fellatio, or her characterisation of it as rape. The details in the article aren't in the second source, so why is it even being used? Hopefully the first source, which I don't have access to, supports what the article says. (Hohum @) 12:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- My mistake for misinterpreting the reference..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- The source is the FBI, not Wikipedia. The definition of rape includes oral. — Status (talk · contribs) 05:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
So why is the other source even there? It isn't used to support anything in the existing text. Remove it. (Hohum @) 17:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Hohum: how is it now? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Lead
@Bluesatellite: With respect, I think the first paragraph is the lead's biggest (and only significant) problem: it pushes Madonna as an innovator, an icon and an extraordinary musician, but barely ties it to music. It would be much better if these thoughts could be dispersed throughout the lead and linked to why she has been afforded these descriptions, e.g. unprecedented power and control in the music industry (Maverick Records, the release of Sex/Erotica), known to induce controversy ("Like A Prayer" video), pushing the boundaries of mainstream popular music ("Vogue", "Frozen", etc.) At the moment I think the paragraph just sits as puffery bordering on the journalistic, and it's not that you're not correct in making these points, it's just that they should be given support to have a more factual ground and neutral tone. Best, —JennKR | ☎ 16:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have to agree here. Also we can discuss regarding the Legacy section here too. The lead does not bother me that much as the legacy section. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think the first paragraph should be the first "summarization" of who she is actually/generally known the most. I took example from her biography in Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Encyclopedia Britannica, AllMusic, as well as similar other artist such as Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson. Madonna has never been just a recording artist, she is a multi-media performer. Actually I didn't change much of the content, only arrange its flow. The frist paragraph is about her in general, the second paragraph is dedicated to her whole musical career, third paragraph for other ventures (film, books, company, etc), and the last paragraph for achievement. As for @IndianBio: comment, yes, Legacy section needs to be reduced, it's totally bloated right now. I think we should think about a separate legacy article, such as Cultural impact of Elvis Presley. Bluesatellite (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Another thing, we should not add more ocupations to the opening sentence. It has been discussed multiple times in the past. General public do not recognize her as an author, nor director. She's also not notable as record producer since she only co-produced her own releases, unlike Prince or Justin Timberlake who also produced albums of other artists. All those less notable professions must stay in the infobox. Bluesatellite (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- We need to reduce the WEASELlike writing in the lead, lemme propose something after I work on it a bit @Bluesatellite and JennKR:. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Another thing, we should not add more ocupations to the opening sentence. It has been discussed multiple times in the past. General public do not recognize her as an author, nor director. She's also not notable as record producer since she only co-produced her own releases, unlike Prince or Justin Timberlake who also produced albums of other artists. All those less notable professions must stay in the infobox. Bluesatellite (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think the first paragraph should be the first "summarization" of who she is actually/generally known the most. I took example from her biography in Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Encyclopedia Britannica, AllMusic, as well as similar other artist such as Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson. Madonna has never been just a recording artist, she is a multi-media performer. Actually I didn't change much of the content, only arrange its flow. The frist paragraph is about her in general, the second paragraph is dedicated to her whole musical career, third paragraph for other ventures (film, books, company, etc), and the last paragraph for achievement. As for @IndianBio: comment, yes, Legacy section needs to be reduced, it's totally bloated right now. I think we should think about a separate legacy article, such as Cultural impact of Elvis Presley. Bluesatellite (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not think the lead is a problem. Why? = It is a good summary of what is being discussed in the rest of the article. Especially in the legacy section, that describe this, including many adjectives and uses the words like "...icon, cultural and/or culture meanings". In change, I believe that it is appropriate, cut the section of legacy.
- Possible solutions
By the last three paragraphs (legacy section), could well go in a section called like "Business ventures and wealth". It's hard, because along the article we talks about her business creations and we have already created separate articles. But... It is better to give a detail in general all in a separate section (details like critics, companies...).
We can created a section like "Legacy and influence", talking about her level and influence in the entertainment industry and, including the critics comments. Finally, we can create a separate article, Cultural impact of Madonna and/or Madonna in the Popular culture like a mixture of Marilyn Monroe in popular culture and Cultural impact of Elvis Presley (I have many sources in several languages about Madonna in popular culture, the media comments and, course images:[10][11]). Nothing is redundant and we are more spacious and clean detail of Madonna as a character is given, the areas in which it works and the critical comments in each area (that are big) Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Net worth
I see the 2013 source from Forbes lists her at $500 million. I'm not sure why. However, many other reliable sources are listing her worth at a billion. What do you think?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Forbes article explains how, contrary to previous reports, she did not have a net worth of $1 billion back in September 2013. However, this may have changed since, and more recent reports from reliable sources indicating her net worth is $1 billion could be used if available. They should probably be brought to the talk page first, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I'll see if I can dig up some quality sources listing a billion. Others should do so as well if possible.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is a discussion in the archives here and it seems that both side of the story were presented and the Forbes was not accepted as a sole reliable source. Its dubiousness was highlighted. I don't know where that edit got lost. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting, though the Forbes article linked in that discussion was from March 2013, and the one being used now is from September 2013. The idea of Forbes being seen as "dubious" surprises me given how it is generally regarded as highly reputatable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think writing "US $500 million to 1 billion" on the infobox is the best choice. These figures are all estimation. We will never know the truth, except Madonna, her accountant, and government (tax division must have known her actual wealth). We can't reject Forbes since they are the most reputable finance magazine, and they have explained their calculation of that number. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- In that case, what are some recommended websites for net worth aside from Forbes? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think writing "US $500 million to 1 billion" on the infobox is the best choice. These figures are all estimation. We will never know the truth, except Madonna, her accountant, and government (tax division must have known her actual wealth). We can't reject Forbes since they are the most reputable finance magazine, and they have explained their calculation of that number. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting, though the Forbes article linked in that discussion was from March 2013, and the one being used now is from September 2013. The idea of Forbes being seen as "dubious" surprises me given how it is generally regarded as highly reputatable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is a discussion in the archives here and it seems that both side of the story were presented and the Forbes was not accepted as a sole reliable source. Its dubiousness was highlighted. I don't know where that edit got lost. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I'll see if I can dig up some quality sources listing a billion. Others should do so as well if possible.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I still stand by what I said in the original discussion. @Bluesatellite: I think your suggestion is best. The article used to say both, but somewhere down the line it was changed. — Status (talk · contribs) 18:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Only thing we need is a source from no earlier than September 2013 indicating $1 billion. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- In the info box, it currently says that Madonna's net worth is $500 million. However, there are numerous sources saying her net worth is around $650-700 million. Should this be changed? — TheMadonnaMusicCN (talk, contribs) 20:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- It depends on which sources are giving such reports. If such sources were published after the Forbes September 2013 article declaring her net worth at $500 million, then they could perhaps be used. Can you provide samples? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- In the info box, it currently says that Madonna's net worth is $500 million. However, there are numerous sources saying her net worth is around $650-700 million. Should this be changed? — TheMadonnaMusicCN (talk, contribs) 20:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
New infobox picture?
I propose to replace the currently used infobox picture with the one below. It's very much better picture we have as for now, without those weird arms of her, and she's looking to the front. Both pictures are from the same photographer, so there's no difference in quaility/resolution. This is the preview of the infobox photo that I suggest. What do you all think? Let me know if there's any objection. Bluesatellite (talk) 09:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
-
Current photo -
Suggested photo
- Go right ahead, I don't see any problem with the suggestion. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I would say that second photo needs a little bit of photoshopping to remove those perspiration marks from her face. Lemme retouch it once and then we can use it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. The current photo is quite awful. — Status (talk · contribs) 04:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- So what is everyone's thoughts of retouching the second image a bit? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Retouching is fine. You wanna try it? Otherwise we can request a more professional help in Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay guys, I have changed the infobox picture. Any further opinions are welcome here :) Bluesatellite (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- My only question is: When will the image be touched up? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done and done, check it out in the article page. :) —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Very nicely done, too :D XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done and done, check it out in the article page. :) —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I like the one on the left a lot more. --Light show (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe a comparison could be made between touched up editions of both photos.....? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I personally think the retouched version looks a bit unnatural. I have requested another help here. Let's see how the result there, then we can list all the three version here and compare them. Bluesatellite (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- The current edited photo is completely unnatural. They minimized her maxilar and altered her right eye. This article is not a press release; I don't see why the photo should be retouched. I am currently learning english so sorry for any errors. Lordelliott (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- @IndianBio:, any comments? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Unnatural in what way? All I did was to highlight the face a bit more. The original, due to being low in pixel and a little dark, Madonna's white shirt had absorbed most of the light and since being a black background there was nothing to work on. The retouched version puts the light on the face and removes the sweat marks. That's definitely not unnatural, personally I would not want a sweaty image of myself to be put on any wesbite, however high pixel it might be. And Lordelliot, where do you find the right eye altered? I did not even touch the right eye at all. You are correct that this article is not a press release, however, WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY teaches us not to use an image which shows the person in a negative way, which the original had a tad bit going on as Madonna looked exhausted a little. :O —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Is it just the lighting, or does the picture of her with the white shirt and black tie make her look more like a redhead or strawberry blond than her well-known image as a blond? If not just the lighting, it might be more appropriate to use what she is known for, and I'm sure IndianBio could also do a good job at touching up that image as well. Again, I suggest a comparison between touched-up-white-shirt-and-black-tie and touched-up-black-suit. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Its just the lighting. You can see the light also pouring up from her head (making her hair reddish) to her right breast and shoulder. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Is it just the lighting, or does the picture of her with the white shirt and black tie make her look more like a redhead or strawberry blond than her well-known image as a blond? If not just the lighting, it might be more appropriate to use what she is known for, and I'm sure IndianBio could also do a good job at touching up that image as well. Again, I suggest a comparison between touched-up-white-shirt-and-black-tie and touched-up-black-suit. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Unnatural in what way? All I did was to highlight the face a bit more. The original, due to being low in pixel and a little dark, Madonna's white shirt had absorbed most of the light and since being a black background there was nothing to work on. The retouched version puts the light on the face and removes the sweat marks. That's definitely not unnatural, personally I would not want a sweaty image of myself to be put on any wesbite, however high pixel it might be. And Lordelliot, where do you find the right eye altered? I did not even touch the right eye at all. You are correct that this article is not a press release, however, WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY teaches us not to use an image which shows the person in a negative way, which the original had a tad bit going on as Madonna looked exhausted a little. :O —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- @IndianBio:, any comments? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, IndianBio, but you're incorrect: http://s8.postimg.org/c84wx87xx/anigif.gif Lordelliott (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please elaborate, Elliott. I'm not seeing any problems with the touched-up edition. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- See the GIF image I posted, XXSNUGGUMSXX. There's the original image and then there's the touched-up edition. He edited her jawbone to look smaller and edited her eyes to look bigger. Lordelliott (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Again, the edits aren't exactly problematic or anything. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I have nothing against lighting edits, sweart marks edits or anything like that. But he altered her facial features. Again: Wikipedia does not work as an artist's press release. There's simply no need to change someone's facial features. I am currently learning english so sorry for any errors. Lordelliott (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Since her facial features weren't drastically edited, it's not exactly a big deal. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Drastic" is not "exactly" an encyclopedic criteria, but if you think it is, go ahead. I maintain my point: since this article is not a press release, she doesn't need to be presented as a prettier version of herself. But since popstars' articles in general are most edited by fans, it is almost impossible to avoid things like this to happen. Good edits, Lordelliott (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Lordelliott: so the jawline is the main issue you see? And again, I did not edit the eyes and it does not show it so in the GIF also. The face is brightened up and that might be it but call a spade a spade. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 02:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think a lighting edit would change the form of her jawline and eyes. She's even squint-eyed a bit in your edit. And yes, the GIF shows it. But go on if you think this edit is OK. Lordelliott (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously because I do not like anybbody's image to look haggard which the original is. Per WP:BLP we are not to use something which essentially defames someone. A minor change which betters an image does it. Let's wait for Bluesatellite's news with the Graphics lad edits. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- It is OK to remove sweat marks because a person doesn't always sweat, but her jawbone and her eyes doesn't change. There's no reason to modify her facial features unless you want to present a "prettier", doll-like version of her, which is something a hardcore fan would do. But that's just my opinion. Good edits, Lordelliott (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously because I do not like anybbody's image to look haggard which the original is. Per WP:BLP we are not to use something which essentially defames someone. A minor change which betters an image does it. Let's wait for Bluesatellite's news with the Graphics lad edits. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think a lighting edit would change the form of her jawline and eyes. She's even squint-eyed a bit in your edit. And yes, the GIF shows it. But go on if you think this edit is OK. Lordelliott (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Lordelliott: so the jawline is the main issue you see? And again, I did not edit the eyes and it does not show it so in the GIF also. The face is brightened up and that might be it but call a spade a spade. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 02:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Drastic" is not "exactly" an encyclopedic criteria, but if you think it is, go ahead. I maintain my point: since this article is not a press release, she doesn't need to be presented as a prettier version of herself. But since popstars' articles in general are most edited by fans, it is almost impossible to avoid things like this to happen. Good edits, Lordelliott (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Since her facial features weren't drastically edited, it's not exactly a big deal. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I have nothing against lighting edits, sweart marks edits or anything like that. But he altered her facial features. Again: Wikipedia does not work as an artist's press release. There's simply no need to change someone's facial features. I am currently learning english so sorry for any errors. Lordelliott (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Again, the edits aren't exactly problematic or anything. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- See the GIF image I posted, XXSNUGGUMSXX. There's the original image and then there's the touched-up edition. He edited her jawbone to look smaller and edited her eyes to look bigger. Lordelliott (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please elaborate, Elliott. I'm not seeing any problems with the touched-up edition. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, IndianBio, but you're incorrect: http://s8.postimg.org/c84wx87xx/anigif.gif Lordelliott (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
@Hohum:, you've stated in an edit summary that we can't use a "warped" image but didn't say why. Can you please elaborate? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Because this is an article about Madonna in an encyclopedia, not a venue to present unrepresentative images, or an article about image warping. MOS:IMAGES says "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate". A warped face clearly doesn't. (Hohum @) 16:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- If referring to altering facial features as "warping", that's one thing. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with adjusting brightness to make the subject easier to see, and it was harder to physically see her face in the unaltered edition. @IndianBio: could maybe make another edit that only brightens the image while @Bluesatellite: has requested further input on image representation. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- When I say warping, I mean changing the relative sizes of regions of an image. Normally the only reason to do that is for perspective or aspect corrections. (Hohum @) 17:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Very well. We still should have more input from others, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Allow me to weigh in. I just came here from the Photography Workshop. The edited version uploaded by IndianBio should be marked for deletion. To materially edit an image of a living person, specifically for use in their BLP infobox, such that it misrepresents their physical features is entirely unencyclopedic. Is this not common sense, regardless of any guidelines?
- I'm taking a look at the edits now and may upload my own efforts. In the meantime I would recommend using Hohum's edit, although it seems a little washed out to my eye. I'm not promising any improvement, mind! Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- ..Okay, I've uploaded another version. All I've tried to do is remove the colour cast caused by the red lighting, while retaining realistic skin and hair tones. I also evened out the lighting on her blouse and touched up a few tiny spots. Hohum's edit was a bit pinkish and desaturated to my eye. (Sorry, bud.) Comments are welcome. nagualdesign (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's better than mine. Nice work. Bad source image though - you'd think we'd be able to find a better recent image for the infobox. (Hohum @) 02:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think the infobox picture looks quite fine, at least for now, until someone uploading a new better image. Other currently available photos are either poor quality or bad looking (strange expression/weird arms/etc). Thanks a lot for your input guys :) Bluesatellite (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's better than mine. Nice work. Bad source image though - you'd think we'd be able to find a better recent image for the infobox. (Hohum @) 02:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- ..Okay, I've uploaded another version. All I've tried to do is remove the colour cast caused by the red lighting, while retaining realistic skin and hair tones. I also evened out the lighting on her blouse and touched up a few tiny spots. Hohum's edit was a bit pinkish and desaturated to my eye. (Sorry, bud.) Comments are welcome. nagualdesign (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Very well. We still should have more input from others, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- When I say warping, I mean changing the relative sizes of regions of an image. Normally the only reason to do that is for perspective or aspect corrections. (Hohum @) 17:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- If referring to altering facial features as "warping", that's one thing. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with adjusting brightness to make the subject easier to see, and it was harder to physically see her face in the unaltered edition. @IndianBio: could maybe make another edit that only brightens the image while @Bluesatellite: has requested further input on image representation. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Idea: A more interesting lead photo might be this one, which is a promo still for her 1983 debut album, by Sire. I found no copyright for the photo and the person selling it says the back is blank. I'd be happy to upload it for a lead image with consensus. --Light show (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Light show: that is already the cover art for her first album so its not free. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Even if it was free, the image is long outdated and does not represent her current image (or even her general image). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- The music was copyrighted, not the photo. I checked. See also film still, which notes it was the same situation for film stars, where the promo material was always given out free. Music and film studios aren't interested in selling pictures, only in promoting their stars. Although, if it's important to have a recent photo, (it's not to me,) I still like the one on the left. --Light show (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Light show:, the image is also copyrighted as I explained it is the album artwork. Doesn't matter if it was send out for promotions. The album has clear liner notes indicating "Cover art work by Gary Heery. Copyright @Sire Records and @Warner Bros." —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- The cover art is copyrighted, not the photography itself. Right?
- Quoting @Light show: "[on the Cher article] This is supposed to be a full biography of a singer and actress, covering a 50-year period, not an article focused on recent newsworthy appearances ... A photo representing the biography [should show] her as she appeared during a key period in career. Hence, the rationale given by an editor, more current photo generally preferred to antediluvian image, is wrong on all counts: It is not generally preferred, except for news stories, not a biography. This is especially true of people in the entertainment field." I think it's the same case here. Lordelliott (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- There's plenty of room within an article to place iconic pictures covering key periods in a person's career, but the infobox image should always remain current for BLPs in order to properly represent the subject as they currently appear, warts and all. And to address a point that was made earlier (up there somewhere), provided that an image properly represents a subject it is not considered defamatory if that image isn't particularly flattering. Some people are better looking than others, depending on who you ask. And any change that materially alters an image in order to make it subjectively more flattering is actually contrary to WP:BLP. Besides that, isn't it denigrating to imply that Madonna's jaw is too wide and her eyes too small for Wikipedia? Or that her face is to aged now to represent the image we have in our minds of her, still 26 years old and singing Like a Virgin or whatever? If WP has guidelines on beauty and aesthetic requirements please provide a link to them here, otherwise I suggest we accept her for what she is; a fairly comely 55 year old by any standards. nagualdesign (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Re: the infobox image should always remain current for BLPs, seems to have no support in any guidelines I'm aware of. In fact the guidelines imply the very opposite: a biography, according to everyone's favorite encyclopedia, is "a detailed description or account of a person's life," not an account of their most recent activities with supporting photos, which is a job for news reports. --Light show (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- There's plenty of room within an article to place iconic pictures covering key periods in a person's career, but the infobox image should always remain current for BLPs in order to properly represent the subject as they currently appear, warts and all. And to address a point that was made earlier (up there somewhere), provided that an image properly represents a subject it is not considered defamatory if that image isn't particularly flattering. Some people are better looking than others, depending on who you ask. And any change that materially alters an image in order to make it subjectively more flattering is actually contrary to WP:BLP. Besides that, isn't it denigrating to imply that Madonna's jaw is too wide and her eyes too small for Wikipedia? Or that her face is to aged now to represent the image we have in our minds of her, still 26 years old and singing Like a Virgin or whatever? If WP has guidelines on beauty and aesthetic requirements please provide a link to them here, otherwise I suggest we accept her for what she is; a fairly comely 55 year old by any standards. nagualdesign (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Light show:, the image is also copyrighted as I explained it is the album artwork. Doesn't matter if it was send out for promotions. The album has clear liner notes indicating "Cover art work by Gary Heery. Copyright @Sire Records and @Warner Bros." —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- The music was copyrighted, not the photo. I checked. See also film still, which notes it was the same situation for film stars, where the promo material was always given out free. Music and film studios aren't interested in selling pictures, only in promoting their stars. Although, if it's important to have a recent photo, (it's not to me,) I still like the one on the left. --Light show (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Even if it was free, the image is long outdated and does not represent her current image (or even her general image). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
How about this one, it's from 2008, and is of far higher quality, no strange expression. The reflections are a little distracting, and could be toned down a *little*. There is another version but it's been overdone. (Hohum @) 17:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- No @Hohum:, that picture is from 2008 and it's now 2014. It's better to have a more recent picture. — TheMadonnaMusicCN (talk, contribs) 19:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please read the entire discussion, Themadonnamusiccn. Lordelliott (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- I did actually @Lordelliott:, thank you. And I still propose that we use a more recent photograph. — TheMadonnaMusicCN (talk, contribs) 19:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Light show: "Re: the infobox image should always remain current for BLPs, seems to have no support in any guidelines I'm aware of. In fact the guidelines imply the very opposite: biography, according to everyone's favorite encyclopedia, is "a detailed description or account of a person's life," not an account of their most recent activities with supporting photos, which is a job for news reports." Lordelliott (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- I did actually @Lordelliott:, thank you. And I still propose that we use a more recent photograph. — TheMadonnaMusicCN (talk, contribs) 19:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please read the entire discussion, Themadonnamusiccn. Lordelliott (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's worth mentioning that even recent book biographies of her sometimes use older photos, such as these from 2012 and 2013. My personal pick is this one, from 2012.--Light show (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- And here's a new bio about Barbra Streisand, who's 71. --Light show (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- While I oftentimes support the idea of using recent photos when available, this 2008 image is actually a better choice those from MDNA tour. @Light Show: is correct in saying that older photos are sometimes used, such as in Michael Jackson and Elizabeth Taylor. Here is general criteria I recommend:
- Images should have lighting that doesn't make the face hard to see
- Images should represent a general image the subject is known for (some of which are subject to change more frequently than others)
- Images should capture as much of the front of the face as possible (even if eyeballs look off to the side)
- Images should not have objects (including microphones and headgear) in front of the face
- With this in mind, the 2008 image seems to still reflect her general well-known image. I support using that one. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- The David Shankbone image is indeed quite old and I do not support its usage. Madonna's structure has indeed changed a lot from then and she looks different also. I still don't understand what's wrong with the current edited image being used or this one which Light Show used. And no, it is completely unnecessary using old images and that too something who's license nobody is sure of, when Madonna is current and living and has tons of recent images that can qualify for it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is simply no need, and no guidance from the wider community (ie. guidelines) for the infobox/lead image to be very recent for a biography. It should be of high quality and indicative of the person. What exactly is the problem with the license of the image suggested? A recent image - perhaps one of those that started the thread - could be used in a relevant part of the article though. (Hohum @) 19:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- The current image actually fulfills all of the criteria listed by XXSNUGGUMSXX, and has my support. The 2008 image is more or less equally representative, and also fulfills the criteria, so I wouldn't be opposed to using that either. We don't have to use the most recent image possible, it just has to look like she looks now, and I completely disagree that "Madonna's structure has indeed changed a lot from then". She'd look as different again if she just flicked her hair the other way. To be honest, I don't understand the problem with keeping the current image. nagualdesign (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- True, the current MDNA image does fulfill the criteria I listed. I personally support 2008 image over either of the MDNA pictures though because it has better lighting and her overall face somehow just looks more natural. She also looks happier in the 2008 one. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- The current image actually fulfills all of the criteria listed by XXSNUGGUMSXX, and has my support. The 2008 image is more or less equally representative, and also fulfills the criteria, so I wouldn't be opposed to using that either. We don't have to use the most recent image possible, it just has to look like she looks now, and I completely disagree that "Madonna's structure has indeed changed a lot from then". She'd look as different again if she just flicked her hair the other way. To be honest, I don't understand the problem with keeping the current image. nagualdesign (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is simply no need, and no guidance from the wider community (ie. guidelines) for the infobox/lead image to be very recent for a biography. It should be of high quality and indicative of the person. What exactly is the problem with the license of the image suggested? A recent image - perhaps one of those that started the thread - could be used in a relevant part of the article though. (Hohum @) 19:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- The David Shankbone image is indeed quite old and I do not support its usage. Madonna's structure has indeed changed a lot from then and she looks different also. I still don't understand what's wrong with the current edited image being used or this one which Light Show used. And no, it is completely unnecessary using old images and that too something who's license nobody is sure of, when Madonna is current and living and has tons of recent images that can qualify for it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- While I oftentimes support the idea of using recent photos when available, this 2008 image is actually a better choice those from MDNA tour. @Light Show: is correct in saying that older photos are sometimes used, such as in Michael Jackson and Elizabeth Taylor. Here is general criteria I recommend:
The 2008 image was used for a looong time until many got SICK of it. Madonna's the biggest star of the world and it's so hard to have a wide variety of public domain images to use? I actually like this image best. It's the one in use just a few weeks ago. Israell (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
What about this one from the MDNA Tour? http://oi60.tinypic.com/332rmfb.jpg Could we use it if we got the proper license? Israell (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- File:Madonna à Nice 17 edit.jpg is of low quality, and her expression isn't natural. The tinypic image is of terrible quality and part of her face is obscured. I wasn't aware of any guidance that says using a high quality image for a LONG time is bad. The ideal infobox box image is a high quality head and shoulders shot representative of the subject with a natural expression, with nothing obscuring their face. (Hohum @) 18:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- That is definitely not a low quality image, although you are correct that her expression is not natural. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- What about the below images? That has the singer laughing towards the camera and is extremely high resolution. Maybe the photoshop "wizards" can work on it? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Out of those, I support the one with the "Nice 21" since it doesn't have bits of any other people off to the side, and is closer up to her face. The lighting and such should definitely be touched up beforehand. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Either image would require some cropping, so the people off to the side aren't a problem. The poor quality of File:Madonna à Nice 21.jpg is: The focus is poor. And File:Madonna à Nice 24.jpg offers little or no improvement over either of the previous suggestions, IMO. Sorry. If you want to keep looking, forget about whether you think she looks nice and focus on image quality, based primarily on those criteria above. Something will turn up, I'm sure. nagualdesign (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- The first image listed in the beginning of the section passes all of these then and is plenty in high resolution and focus. Why are we even having this discussion then. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think for a lead, Shankbone's photo is my 1st choice, as it's a good, clear, full-face headshot. Portraits strike me as better for bio leads. This one also has the advantage of being a candid in a relaxed and normal real-world setting, without stage attire. --Light show (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Going back to Hohum's comment at the beginning of this section, "The reflections are a little distracting, and could be toned down a *little*." I've made an edit to reduce the specular reflection. And since others are tending towards using that image I'll lend my full support. So that's +1 for File:Madonna by David Shankbone cropped.jpg. nagualdesign 20:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think for a lead, Shankbone's photo is my 1st choice, as it's a good, clear, full-face headshot. Portraits strike me as better for bio leads. This one also has the advantage of being a candid in a relaxed and normal real-world setting, without stage attire. --Light show (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- The first image listed in the beginning of the section passes all of these then and is plenty in high resolution and focus. Why are we even having this discussion then. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Either image would require some cropping, so the people off to the side aren't a problem. The poor quality of File:Madonna à Nice 21.jpg is: The focus is poor. And File:Madonna à Nice 24.jpg offers little or no improvement over either of the previous suggestions, IMO. Sorry. If you want to keep looking, forget about whether you think she looks nice and focus on image quality, based primarily on those criteria above. Something will turn up, I'm sure. nagualdesign (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Out of those, I support the one with the "Nice 21" since it doesn't have bits of any other people off to the side, and is closer up to her face. The lighting and such should definitely be touched up beforehand. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Years active (again)
Just observed the revision history of Michael Jackson's page where someone changed the start of his "years active" from 1964 to 1968, noting that in 1964 he was only a local performer and that his professional musical career did not start until 1968.
A similar change makes sense for Madonna. Her professional musical career began in 1982. In the previous discussion, someone argued that 1979 was the start of her professional career because in that year she was a back-up dancer in a few of Patrick Hernandez's concerts and acted in her first film, A Certain Sacrifice. But those were both local gigs unrelated to her professional career.
A Certain Sacrifice was a student film, a local production equivalent to a high school play. All of the "actors" were ordinary people who appeared in the project for free, except Madonna who was paid 35 dollars at request. By no means was this a feature film, and the only reason it eventually got minor distribution in 1985 was to cash in on Madonna's newfound fame (she tried to prevent it from being released). It does not count as part of her professional career.
This article actually does not have a direct source for the statement that she performed as a dancer on Patrick Hernandez's 1979 world tour. Hernandez's Wiki page does have a source, which states the following: After auditioning for French disco singer Patrick Hernandez, Madonna took off for Paris, where she was to be part of his concert show. She did backup singing for him on a few recording sessions. However, her overly independent nature irked Hernandez and his associates, and she was soon jobless. This was unrelated to her professional career. Also, the musical group she performed in during the early 1980s, Breakfast Club, was only a local band at that time (they were not signed to a record label until 1984, three years after she left the group). Madonna's professional career began in 1982.
This old revision had it right. Somewhere along the way, mistaken information was incorporated into the article, and the errors went unnoticed, even after the page was deemed a "Good Article." An example of mistaken information that went unnoticed, for instance, is the erroneous statement "Madonna moved to New York City in 1977" which has since been changed (she moved there in 1978 according to every source; there was no source supporting 1977, it was merely a mistake made by an editor). Her years active should be changed back to 1982. Kaynow5 (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Just a comment, the "*insert year*–present" is not necessarily based on when she started her musical career. It refers to essentially any professional working, which in this case could be her acting. However, if A Certain Sacrifice is in fact not professional, then yes 1982 is what should be used. I'll go correct that. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. We need this to be the consensus so someone doesn't change it to an earlier year again. Kaynow5 (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- God, I think the previous discussion is pretty clear. She joined her band Breakfast Club in 1979, she toured with Patrick Hernandez in 1979, she acted in A Certain Sacrifice in 1979. What else? Bluesatellite (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- "A Certain Sacrifice was a student film, a local production equivalent to a high school play. All of the "actors" were ordinary people who appeared in the project for free, except Madonna who was paid 35 dollars at request. By no means was this a feature film, and the only reason it eventually got minor distribution in 1985 was to cash in on Madonna's newfound fame (she tried to prevent it from being released). It does not count as part of her professional career." — I'm not at all convinced of this reasoning that just a student film and being low-budget it would not be a part of Madonna's filmography. That is just gross WP:POV at its lowest which Kaynow5 advocates. Do you have supporting facts or sources saying that her career started in 1982? If not, its all WP:OR and Illuminati theories at this point. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- And how come being a dancer/back up singer for a chart-topping artist is not considered a professional work? Bluesatellite (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea seriously, seems like Madonna cannot be anything else other than singer that's what Kaynow5 insinuates. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Kaynow5 is probably going based off of prominence, that's my guess. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Bluesatellite, I think my opening post speaks for itself. Local performing should not be included in her professional career. A Certain Sacrifice was not a "film" until 1985 when it was distributed to cash in on Madonna's fame. It is copyrighted as 1985. When Madonna acted in it, it was not a professional gig. Neither was her touring with Patrick Hernandez (click on the book link, it was just a gig for her to make ends meet) and certainly not her performing in Breakfast Club, which was only a local band when she was in it. The band wasn't signed to a record label until 1984. Lastly, look at the revision link. From the very beginning of this page's existence, 1982 was the start of her years active. Someone with the wrong point of view changed it to 1979 along the way. Kaynow5 (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- That reasoning that it was 1982 always doesn't hold candle since its FA id version also had 1979 as her career year. And it doesn't matter if touring with Hernandez was to make her ends meet, she toured with a professional recording artist, danced for him and had her name on the itinerary. This all seems too WP:POV without any concrete evidence which says that she professionally started in 1982 only. And when is just having a recording contract considered the start of professional career? And for your kind information Madonna had been recording with BC as well as Camille Barbone much before that and she was signed to Gotham Records then. They were never released since Madonna broke with Camille. Regarding A Certain Sacrifice, I have to ask WP:FILMS regarding which year would be considered, the year of acting or the year of release. And that was Madonna's professional role too, she got paid, albeit small, unlike the others. The fact that it was released to cash in on Like a Virgin again does not dissuade the fact that she was paid for something, signed the film and really did it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- FYI, {{Infobox person}} clearly states that "years_active" corresponds to "Date range in years during which the subject was active in their principal occupation(s) and/or other activity for which they are notable." Madonna is notable for being an entertainer, not just a singer. This just double proves it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Bluesatellite, I think my opening post speaks for itself. Local performing should not be included in her professional career. A Certain Sacrifice was not a "film" until 1985 when it was distributed to cash in on Madonna's fame. It is copyrighted as 1985. When Madonna acted in it, it was not a professional gig. Neither was her touring with Patrick Hernandez (click on the book link, it was just a gig for her to make ends meet) and certainly not her performing in Breakfast Club, which was only a local band when she was in it. The band wasn't signed to a record label until 1984. Lastly, look at the revision link. From the very beginning of this page's existence, 1982 was the start of her years active. Someone with the wrong point of view changed it to 1979 along the way. Kaynow5 (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Kaynow5 is probably going based off of prominence, that's my guess. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea seriously, seems like Madonna cannot be anything else other than singer that's what Kaynow5 insinuates. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- And how come being a dancer/back up singer for a chart-topping artist is not considered a professional work? Bluesatellite (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- "A Certain Sacrifice was a student film, a local production equivalent to a high school play. All of the "actors" were ordinary people who appeared in the project for free, except Madonna who was paid 35 dollars at request. By no means was this a feature film, and the only reason it eventually got minor distribution in 1985 was to cash in on Madonna's newfound fame (she tried to prevent it from being released). It does not count as part of her professional career." — I'm not at all convinced of this reasoning that just a student film and being low-budget it would not be a part of Madonna's filmography. That is just gross WP:POV at its lowest which Kaynow5 advocates. Do you have supporting facts or sources saying that her career started in 1982? If not, its all WP:OR and Illuminati theories at this point. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- God, I think the previous discussion is pretty clear. She joined her band Breakfast Club in 1979, she toured with Patrick Hernandez in 1979, she acted in A Certain Sacrifice in 1979. What else? Bluesatellite (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Completely true, IndianBio. I see that Kaynow5 just using his 'own' assumption to claim this job is professional or that one is not. For comparison, the active year in John Lennon (FA) article is 1957, and his first record deal was in 1962 with The Beatles. Adam Levine did not sign to any label until 1997 with Kara's Flowers, yet his article says he's been active since 1994. You cannot say a band without recording deal is not professional, that's a POV. Madonna formed Breakfast Club in 1979, they performed in clubs, and they get paid. Thas's definitely part of her career as a musician. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speaking of the Beatles, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr also use 1957 and are both FA's. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- I completely agree with IndianBio and Bluesatellite. While your argument on the student film makes sense, Breakfast Club started in 1979. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely can't discount Breakfast Club. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence that Madonna was actually in Breakfast Club in 1979? That is the year Dan Gilroy formed the band, I thought she joined in 1980. The years listed on the album "Pre-Madonna" of early demo recordings she sung on list the years as 1980-81. Kaynow5 (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Just for the record, people definitely form a band/group before they make recordings, so the idea of them forming in 1979 is not at all something I would consider surprising. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Is there any proof that Madonna performed in the group prior to 1980? From my understanding, Dan Gilroy had already formed the band before he met her, and she joined after they started having a relationship. Kaynow5 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Just for the record, people definitely form a band/group before they make recordings, so the idea of them forming in 1979 is not at all something I would consider surprising. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence that Madonna was actually in Breakfast Club in 1979? That is the year Dan Gilroy formed the band, I thought she joined in 1980. The years listed on the album "Pre-Madonna" of early demo recordings she sung on list the years as 1980-81. Kaynow5 (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely can't discount Breakfast Club. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The most successful and the best selling female of all time
...."Madonna has sold more than 300 million records worldwide and is recognized as the best-selling female recording artist of all time by Guinness World Records".
According to Guinness World Records, Madonna besides being, the the best-selling female recording artist of all time, is the the most successful female recording of all time. So... we can add that:
...."Madonna has sold more than 300 million records worldwide and is recognized as the most successful and best-selling female recording artist of all time by Guinness World Records". Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.120.18.172 (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- We have been through these discussions before also. Please search the archives. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Isn't the lead too long?
Can't the lead be shortened? Isn't it too long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senegambianamestudy (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, it complies to the lead MOS of wikipedia. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2014
 | This edit request to Madonna (entertainer) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
207.233.80.138 (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- What in the article do you want changed? Please specify. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Ciccone
Madonna's last name is pronounced "chi-ko-NEE" in English, as opposed to "chi-ko-NAY" in Italian. Madonna herself pronounces it "chi-ko-NEE". Both her parents were born in the United States, by the way. I suggest the IPA is changed to reflect that. Israell (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- How does one change that bit? I'm not sure how such text really works. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Religion
Here's a source: Lauer: “So if I said to you what is your religion...?” Madonna: “I don’t have a religion because I don’t like that word religion.” Lauer: “You used to have a religion.” Madonna: “What was it, I was raised a Catholic. But that was something that was imposed on me by my family.” Lauer: “So if someone asked you, you would say I have no religion, I’m spiritual.” Madonna: “I’m a Kabbalah.” Madonna regularly attends classes at the Kabbalah Center in Los Angeles, as do husband Guy Ritchie and six-year-old daughter Lourdes. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3080045/ns/dateline_nbc-newsmakers/t/madonna-american-life/
Madonna never left Kabbalah. She was seen at the Kabbalah Center just last March: http://www.madonnarama.com/posts-en/2014/03/23/madonna-at-the-kabbalah-center-in-new-york-22-march-2014-pictures/ http://www.celebritybabyscoop.com/2014/03/25/madonna-kabbalah-with-kids
Israell (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I must have read a false source on leaving Kabbalah, so my bad there. However, I'm skeptical as to whether "CelebrityBabyScoop" is a very credible or professional source. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Madonna at the Kabbalah Center (May 2014): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2625207/Madonnas-son-David-Banda-shows-moves-dances-way-Kabbalah-Centre-New-York.html These from Madonna's official Instagram (Kabbalah related): http://instagram.com/p/llzFu4GEfn/ http://instagram.com/p/XNIAjfGEUR/
Is it possible to just replace "Religion" by "Belief system"? It's how Madonna described Kabbalah as in the interview linked above. If not, the Infobox could still read: "Religion: Kabbalah"; I see no objection to it. Israell (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm..... I doubt such a field exists for infoboxes. It should also be noted that Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Not that her own Instagram is bad or unreliable, but a reliable third-party source would be preferred if available. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
It is a well-established fact Madonna currently IS an adept of Kabbalah. Madonna spoke about it in countless interviews since 1997. The body of the article also does mention it. I've posted evidence she still attends the Kabbalah Center. Links that come from her own Instagram are her own confirmation she's still a Kabbalist.
Here's an excerpt from an Oct. 4th 2013 interview: "If I became a Buddhist—put an altar in my house and started chanting "Nam-myoho-renge-kyo"—no one would have bothered me at all. I mean no disrespect to Buddhists, but Kabbalah really freaked people out. It still does." http://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/news/madonna-interview-1113 Israell (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I fully acknowledge that I was mistaken in saying she had left. You did provide reliable sources (NBC, Harper's Bazaar, and yes her Instagram as well) for evidence. However, since you stated in an edit summary that Kabbalah isn't quite a religion, we can't put it under "religion" field. Since a "beliefs system" field is nowhere to be found for infoboxes, best to just not make any mention of religious/spiritual affiliations in infobox and just only mention Kabbalah affiliations within article body. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I agree with XXSNUG's assertion. Better to leave that field if we cannot have a concrete religion name. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
New info.
Madonna was listed in Billboard Magazine "List of Top 25 Live Artists Since 1990" which was published 27th May 2014 Madonna is listed as the 4th most successful artist & the highest among females with a Gross of $1,140,230,941 from an attendance of 9,694,079 in 382 shows.
Furthermore, Time magazine published a list of " the 100 most obsessed-over people on the web". Where Madonna came in 3rd, the highest for any female. 27th May 2014
http://time.com/109947/web-ranking/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.200.0 (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- The tour gross is already present and the Time list is just plain unnecessary drivel. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Error
At the end of the section for Music videos there is an error. it says in May 2014 Rolling Stone magazine named her the 4th highest grossing touring act. It was in fact Billboard magazine who named her this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.125.228 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
My OCD spellcheck
Under the vocal style & Instruments section, this phrase:
"After two decades, Madonna decide to perform with guitar again during the promotion of Music"
Should read:
"After two decades, Madonna decided to perform with guitar again during the promotion of Music"
...as the content of the paragraph is in the third person/past tense, "decide" should be "decided"
Cheers :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scullard.L (talk • contribs) 03:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out! Correcting..... Snuggums (talk • contributions) 06:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Most Influential Woman in History
http://www.evoke.ie/most-influential-women-in-history/ This is a huge accomplishment and needs to be added right away. Also Queen of Pop should be next to her name, just like Michael Jackson's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.102.226 (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- No. Wikipedia page views are not means of popularity. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I came across the article and immediately saw the lead with its superlatives: "unprecedented level of power," "Immense popularity" and so on. I'm going to trim the fawning portions, which (unsurprisingly) have no citations. Madonna is one of many singers but is not, as the article now implies, one of the greatest people who ever lived.Catherinejarvis (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thabks for the catch. Article does need POV cleaning. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 23:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Trimming =/= removing the whole block. I have reinstated it while deleting the non-neutral POV. Most of it is indeed critically discussed in the article body. Again, just to make it clear, I'm not for the fluffery that has seeped into this article in its legacy and other sections. But I'm against deleting whole blocks because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And the edit by Catherinejarvis particularly seemed problematic because instead of finding an interim solution the user deleting the whole portion. I hope the user is careful from the next time though. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thabks for the catch. Article does need POV cleaning. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 23:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- I came across the article and immediately saw the lead with its superlatives: "unprecedented level of power," "Immense popularity" and so on. I'm going to trim the fawning portions, which (unsurprisingly) have no citations. Madonna is one of many singers but is not, as the article now implies, one of the greatest people who ever lived.Catherinejarvis (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Bisexuality
Adding Category:Bisexual entertainers. From page 147 of Madonna: An Intimate Biography: "Because Madonna has been frank about her bisexual nature". I'm surprised that this isn't mentioned in the article. Its mentioned in Bisexual Erasure and its been brought up on these talk pages a few times before. Zell Faze (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually holding back after finding the following quote from Madonna herself on page 66 of Madonna as Postmodern Myth: "Whether I'm bisexual or not is of no interest. My position on sexuality is that it is not necessary to have a position, whatever that may be, but it is necessary to be free to do what you want."
- Additionally the following excerpt from her 1991 interview with The Advocate seems relevant.
- Madonna: [Holding up a copy of Giovanni's Room by James Baldwin.] It’s incredible. What I hope is — maybe I’m being too idealistic — that my movie changes things in Hollywood in that direction. But like anything, it’s slow progress, two steps forward, one step back. Even though I dealt with some other-than-heterosexual themes in “Justify My Love,” unfortunately some people just saw it in a superficial way and didn’t really want to deal with it.
- Advocate: Deal with what?
- Madonna: The sexual themes in it. It wasn’t just about me. It’s about life, about human nature. I think everybody has a bisexual nature. That’s my theory. I could be wrong.
- Advocate: Are you as kinky personally as your image makes you seem?
- Madonna: Well, what do you mean by kinky? I mean, I am aroused by two men kissing. Is that kinky? I am aroused by the idea of a woman making love to me while either a man or another woman watches. Is that kinky? Also, just because I’m presented life in a certain way doesn’t mean I do all these things. It’s just something I choose to express.
- What does everyone else think? I'm pinging lgbt@lists.wikimedia.org on this, not to WP:CANVASSING but to get their opinion as some folks there might be more knowledgeable on the matter and have more sources in either direction than I do. Zell Faze (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think this should be added. Fooling around with another anonymous woman is not something notable. As far as I know, Madonna's never had a notable/long term relationship with a woman (never lived with one etc).--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 07:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I would back off on including this unless there's a quote from Madonna more explicitly claiming she's bisexual ("everyone has a bisexual nature" isn't strong enough). Including any potentially-misconstrued information about someone's sex life in a BLP is a big no-no. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
"almost sacred"
This article still reads like a fan site: The lede contains vague fluff like "She achieved popularity by pushing the boundaries of lyrical content" and she is "known for reinventing both her music and image" -which can be said for almost anyone else as well. Now look at the section for legacy: it uses phrases that call her "almost sacred," "most influential," "Global cultural icon," "changed everything," "changed the world's social history," "America's smartest businesswoman," and "most important woman in the history of popular music." Yes, she has sold a lot of records, she has acted in movies, she dabbled in fashion design. That does not make her a sacred icon. It makes her one of hundreds of other people who did the same thing. This article needs constant vigilance to avoid becoming the 67th book of the Holy Bible.Catherinejarvis (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Potential GAR
As the person who nominated this page for GA, I'm considering proposing it for reassessment as I think the problems of this page are worsening beyond belief. The version of the article I nominated successfully was by no means perfect, but I believe it to be far more neutral than the current state of the article. The two worrying aspects are the lead and the Legacy section, which I think have been incrementally expanded into sections with fansite-like writing and lots of cut-and-stick quotations about how influential and amazing Madonna is. This isn't how an encyclopedia entry should read. I hope that editors can help facilitate a re-write of these sections, either formally in a GAR or informally through talk page discussion and general editing, or failing this, I think the article could be helped by copyedits from editors not interested in the subject. Regards, —JennKR | ☎ 15:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- IndianBio: A while ago you said you would attempt a re-write of the lead in your user space, did you start anything? I think the article would greatly benefit from that. However, if you didn't get round to it then don't worry, I'm sure we can figure something out! —JennKR | ☎ 15:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think the legacy section is what bothers me the most. The lead can be definitely tweaked but the legacy section is too much. Give me a week's time, I think I can work on it in my sandbox. This week I would be busy completing some other assignments I had planned. How does that sound? I do not think it warrants a GAR based on two overflowing sections though. Just pretty much pruning the weed. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 15:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- GAR isn't quite needed, Jenn. I was thinking of touching it up in my own sandbox. Legacy is far too long. Taking a look at FA's such as Michael Jackson and Charlie Chaplin, we should opt for three or four paragraphs at most. IndianBio can take the lead section. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 15:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think the legacy section is what bothers me the most. The lead can be definitely tweaked but the legacy section is too much. Give me a week's time, I think I can work on it in my sandbox. This week I would be busy completing some other assignments I had planned. How does that sound? I do not think it warrants a GAR based on two overflowing sections though. Just pretty much pruning the weed. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 15:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Great suggestions. The reason why I considered GAR is because I think this article suffers the same problems Beyoncé (and other female pop-singer BLPs) did. The GAR process on that article, which most (including myself) felt was initially unnecessary and drawn-out, nevertheless led to a much stronger article than existed previously, particularly as it attracted useful external opinion. However, I'd much prefer to not go through that process and you both seem confident that it's unnecessary, so we'll review it informally. I'll go through the rest of the article in the coming days for copy edits, fixes, formatting, etc. I'll also be on hand to assist either of you with the lead or legacy sections, so drop me a talk page note or a note here and I'll assist. IndianBio: Take as long as you like, the same to you XXSNUGGUMSXX, if we can complete this by early/mid July I think that would be great! Best, —JennKR | ☎ 16:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Okay great then, we will have a great team in making this perfect, and maybe FA worthy (just kidding) :D —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. I was thinking of taking to FAC eventually, but not for quite some time. I do think, however, it would be nice to have this as "Today's Featured Article" for her birthday some year. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- @JennKR and XXSNUGGUMSXX: lets say we start the trimming of the article here at Talk:Madonna (entertainer)/trim? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- @JennKR:, I know you must be busy with the Beyonce GA review, but could you please take a look at the above which we started working. Not much progress but it is definitely something. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Guys, I have also solicited the help of User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult, who recently did a magnificent job of trimming the legacy section of Janet Jackson and what a brilliant way he did it. It looks so professional now. I have left a message at his talk page. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've done what I can here: Talk:Madonna (entertainer)/trim. Trimmed the section down to 4 paragraphs and retained what I believe to be the most quintessential info. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Guys, I have also solicited the help of User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult, who recently did a magnificent job of trimming the legacy section of Janet Jackson and what a brilliant way he did it. It looks so professional now. I have left a message at his talk page. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- @JennKR:, I know you must be busy with the Beyonce GA review, but could you please take a look at the above which we started working. Not much progress but it is definitely something. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- @JennKR and XXSNUGGUMSXX: lets say we start the trimming of the article here at Talk:Madonna (entertainer)/trim? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. I was thinking of taking to FAC eventually, but not for quite some time. I do think, however, it would be nice to have this as "Today's Featured Article" for her birthday some year. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Okay great then, we will have a great team in making this perfect, and maybe FA worthy (just kidding) :D —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- IndianBio I think it's looking great, much, much better! I've done some minor copyediting but I don't think it needs any more work. Well done to you, SNUGGUMS and Bookkeeperoftheoccult! —JennKR | ☎ 23:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you all guys. Its great that it looks so much more professional now. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)